CCI probe: Delhi HC grants Madison time to file rejoinder

The Delhi High Court on Monday examined several key questions raised by Madison Communications in its challenge to the Competition Commission of India’s investigation into alleged cartelisation in the advertising sector. 

The bench, led by Justice Sachin Datta, also noted that a connected constitutional challenge is already pending before the Division Bench, which is scheduled to hear the matter on January 8.

Read e4m report on Madison files fresh petition

In view of this, the court directed that Madison’s writ petition be listed after the January 8 hearing. The judge granted Madison time to file its rejoinder and said all pleadings must be completed before the next date. The matter has been listed for January 19, 2026. The court added that both sides are at liberty to mention the case again once the Division Bench takes it up.

Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, assisted by advocates Anu Monga and Rahul Goel, appeared for Madison. The company has also filed a separate writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Competition Act and new CCI regulations. That petition will also be heard on January 8.

On Monday, the bench heard extensive arguments on Madison’s claim that the CCI’s search and seizure exercise and the Director General’s investigation were carried out beyond statutory limits. Madison is seeking quashing of the search action and the Commission’s prima facie order under Section 26(1).

Counsel for Madison argued that the Commission is required to clearly name all the entities it wants investigated before the DG can begin any probe. The petition stated that the DG has “no independent authority” to expand the scope of the investigation on his own.

“The CCI behaved like the Enforcement Directorate, as if it was a criminal case,” counsel said. The DG’s actions, Madison argued, amounted to a “fishing and roving inquiry.”

Madison also complained that it has not been given access to seized material. “The only thing shown to us is the CCI’s own order. No underlying material, no seized documents. We are expected to pay fees without even knowing how many pages or which documents are involved,” the counsel told the court.

Another major contention relates to Regulations 46 and 47 of the CCI General Regulations, which restrict the role of lawyers during DG investigations. Madison argued that these limitations are unreasonable and affect a party’s ability to consult legal counsel while being questioned.

The bench noted that the Supreme Court had passed an interim arrangement on this issue. “If the Supreme Court has made an interim arrangement on this issue, there is no reason why we should not follow that,” Justice Datta observed.

Counsel for the CCI countered that the Supreme Court’s order does not stay the regulations. The Commission argued that the regulations simply codify the Supreme Court’s position and remain binding.

Madison’s legal team sought a one-week deferment of the DG summons scheduled for October 14. “This matter started in 2024. There is no urgency that warrants proceeding tomorrow without resolving these fundamental issues,” counsel said.

The bench said it was inclined to defer the summons and asked both parties to place all relevant Supreme Court and High Court orders on record for detailed consideration.

The controversy stems from a leniency application filed in early 2024 that alleged a buyers’ cartel among advertisers associated with the Indian Society of Advertisers. This triggered the CCI investigation and a 20-hour search and seizure operation at Madison’s Mumbai office on March 18 and 19, 2025.

Madison has argued that the Commission’s own order had found that members of the ISA circulated a Model Agency Agreement that restricted negotiation powers and hurt agency revenue. The agency claims that members of the Advertising Agencies Association of India were actually the victims and not the perpetrators.

Despite this, Madison alleges, the DG targeted advertising agencies while no similar search action was taken against ISA members. The company said the process was arbitrary and caused significant reputational harm.

The High Court will continue hearing the matter after both sides place the relevant orders on record. A formal decision on the summons deferment and the legal representation issue is expected at the next hearing.